Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

VOL. X. WYNNE & DeWOLF, Publishers and Proprietors. DAILY, (In adrwoe) per annum »..$ 5 60 “ ulx month 2 50 “ one mouth . 50 WEBKLY, one year 110 SEMI-WEEKLY, one year 1 5 0 BUND A Y, one year 1 00 Strictly in advance. RAIEBOE ADVERTISING. One Bq in* io, one wook . $ 8 00 One Square, on month 800 One Bqiiar-q six mouth 28 00 Transient advertisements SI.OO a square oi each insertion Fifty per oent. additional in local column. Liberal rates to &dv< vtiKcrconts, JOB rUINTiNG 01 every description executed with neatness an 1 dispatch. SENATOR BROWN. Reply to Remarks of Senator Hoar. — THB POLYGAMOUS PRACTICES OF UTAH - THE PUNISMHENT WHICH SHOULD BE INFLICTED ON THOSE CONVICTED OF THE PRACTICE—THE PURITANS AND SLA very—other matters. The senate, as in committee of the whole, having under consideration the bill (5.1283) to amend an act enti tled “An act to amend section 5352 of the revised statutes oi the United States, inreterence to bigamy, ana tor other purposes,” approved March 22, 1882— Mr. Brown eaid: Mr. President; Speaking of my speech of the 27t h ultimo the senator from Massachusetts [Mr Hoat] said in his reply, “Certainly the logical result of the speech, it it has pre mises from which a logical result is to be derived, is that polygamy is better than the lawful marriage of one husband to one wife, and that Mormonism is better than Christian ity as the practical governing rule of a state.” Now. Mr. President, this it an extraordinary statement coming from a person or the usual accuracy of the senator from Massachusetts, and can account for it in only one way, and that ne did not hear the first portion of my speach to which he was replying. I laid down the position that the constitution of the United States pro tects every citizen in the free exercise of religion, and that neither nor any other power in the United States has the coustiutional right, to pass any law abridging the freedom of religion or lute: faring with the most perfect freedom or opinion on religious subjects. At the same time I laid down the position most dis tinctly that no one can practice immorality under the cloak of reli gion and claim the protection of the constitution. I stated that the su preme court of the United States had decided, and properly, chat a person indited for polygamy cannot protect himself by pleading ms religious opiu ion that polygamy is legal. I stated distinctly that I consider the prac ice Os polygamy grossly immoral. 1 consider the practice of polygamy grossly immoral. I stated that con gress nad already passed laws which were now on the statute book, making polygamy a penitentiary crime, and that it was the duty of th* court when a person in the territory of Utah is convicted ot polyg >mv to sentence the party to penitentiary imprisonment just as the sentence of the law ie imposed on any other felon whois convicted of the commission ot crime. 1 stated that I bud repeat edly denounced polygamy on tin floor, and it at all toe prosperity and good conduct ot the Mormons could not justify polygamy. I urtnor atatedt tha as the liw now stands we appoint the governor, the judges, ttre prosecuting attorney, the marshal and the clerks for Utah; ana they are appointed Dec ruse they are opposed to polygamy; and that when a Mot mon is put upon trial for polygamy, as the law now stands, no other Moimon Can serve as a juror in the case unless ue will flist swtar that he has never prac iced polygamy and that ha does not believe it ie right. So that it is next to impos Bible, if mere-ta any evid-nce agn s him, for a person wno has b en gull y of polygamy to escape before a jury who have sworn that they do not believe polygamy to be right ai i before a ju ige, prosecuting atorbey. marshal and cl-rk who ate Sent there to convict, who ate appointed because ot their opposi ion and polyg amy couid not increase under this state ot things, bet must decrease; that it was not considered compul sory under the laws of the M rrnon church, but only per ml-sive; that the law as it now stands disfranchises a man who practices it, and neitnei permits him to vote nor hold office, and I to k it tor granted that no young Mormon who is umbilicus, and who looks to the future, will enter into polygamy when the puuienrneut would be penitentiary imprisonment and disqualification to vote or noid any public trust. But while I took this decided ground in favor of punishing and suppressing polygamy, 1 also took the position that we La 1 no right to punish any one under charge of po lygamy unti. Leis cunvic eu by due coutse of law; that to impose upon him a test oath io prov bis guilt is in violation, not only of fundament ai principle, but oi the eousciiu'.iou of the United bates. Now, Mr. President, Istillstand by the doctrine of my sp-ocu. Isay pun ish with penitentiary imprisonment every polygamist who is legally convicted of the crime, but pumsn nobody for any crime until ne n«s been legally convicted. Use no ille gal or unconstiutional test oaths as a meats of ascertaining the guilt or anybody, but uee all legal and con stitutional means to suppress th< evil and punish the guilty. Wbil we have a right to do tins, we nave no right tn undertake to suppress the Mormon church or to put them doW: as a set or denomination. Toe tact that they believe in polygamy furu ishes no jusi iflcation tor persecution or for their punishment. The fact that they practice is not only furnishes a justification for severe penalty stat utes, but makes it our duty to enact them and while lam ready to sup port any law that imposes severe < penalty upon polygamy, I am not willing in connection with it to sup port the confiscation of church property, the imposition of illegal test oaths, or the punishment of any person for any criue of which he has not been legally convicted, •' I nave laid down the doctrine, and 1 do not expect to bear it success fully controverted, that a divorce granted for any other cause except ■ftlailtj f Times. that of adultery or fornication is Illegal according to the Divine law, and is in violation of the *xpresecom mand of Christ himseif. Tins ! authority does not bind p-rsons who deny that Christ is the sou of God, and that the Christian religion is true and what it professes to be. I admit that such person would not old himself bound bv this authority, but every Ohirstian and every believer in tne num of the Christian religion must feel bound by it. Then, according to this au'horitv, every mao who puts away nis wir- by divorce and marries another, except for the cause of fornication com tnits adultery, as be is not legally divorced or separated trom the first wife,and as . >• has marriel the sec ond and is living wi b her In adul tery he is a bigamist or ap flygamist. H« bis two living wives. H- is neg lecting his duty to tue first and only legal wife and is living in adultery with another woman. Now, Mr. President, while we are legislating against the social evil m one of 'he territories and i.re profess ing to have great regard for the sanctity of the family itt ue so legis late as to probibt this illegal demruo tion of the family m the Dierfict of Columbia and ihs teribenes. It we have jurisdiction over the question of polygamy in the territory ot Utxh we nave certainly iik jurisdiction over illegal divorce and illegal rtmar iliges in the Diitiietof O ilumniaand the territories of the United 8 ates. My amendm'Ut provided that this system ■ t illegal divorce which is now authorized by congress in the D strict cf Coiumpia shall be abol* ished and the cour s in granting an absolute divorce snail be cunflued to the one cause w titan is legal accord ing to the Divine law. The senator from Missaohuietts says he does not suppose I Xpecc to pas such an amendment. Wuy not, Mr. President? I hivearight to ex pect the senator from M is-nchuseita and every senator on tub fluor who admits tue divine character of the SaV or and the truths of Christianity to Vote for this amendment. lex peer the senator from M .s.-aohusetis to vote f>r it, because if lam not misinformed, be believes in the truths of Christianity, and b-o.use ue professes to be greatly int rested m tue preservation and sancuty of the marrige relation. If he believes in Christianity and desires to main tain inviolate tne marriage relation I can see no excuse he cm have tor voting ag dost my amendment. Again, Mr. President,,! presume the seuatur from Massachusetts has great respect for the constitution and the laws of bis own stare, and if ne Carries out here tue r< quiremeuts oi the cous.itut.ion ot M soacuuaeiis he certainly cmnot vote ugaitst mj amendment. in part 1. article 3. of the const! tution of Maseachusei s 1 Udisuuot ly stated that tne happiness of cur pecpieandtue good order ana pre servation of a civil guv ramen' sseniially deneud upon "ruiigiou, pieiyand morality.” It the good order of a civil g'.v rn meet depends upon morality, it may ne pr< >pei to ii quire wuatis moran cy. One of Webster's i.etiuiii.ius is: "The conformity of an act to the divine law or to the principles ot mora>B " And one of the definitions jf the word "m urai.” is: ‘Conform ny to the rules of right or to the div ne law recpeeiirg social duties. I. then We appiy the pr n ipies Oi morality to my amendm nt th*y would r> quire mat the taw Ot con gress as we may enact it be made to conform to tne divine law itßpectii g social duties. Ii so we must tut bid ilvoic tor any cause exc pt fornica tion. ueeuuse the d.vme law in the übj-ct ot social duties dis'iuctly deciares that divorce>suall b . gtauteu lor no other o use. In part 1 .rriole 18, ot the constiiu ion ot Massachu setts, I find me following language: "A Inqueut recu recce to the uud imr-ut .1 priucples of >he consti tution, an : constant adherence to hose ot piety, justice, m deration, temperance, industry and irugality are necessary to pieserve tne siivm tage of liberty and to maintain a fiee government. Tue people * ugm i oastnut.y to h >ve a particular atten tion to ail these principles in the moice ot their uffiuers and represen tatives and Lave a light to rtquire their iaw givers ana magistrates and exact ana c instant observances ot them in ’he lormation and execution or the laws necessary for tne good adminiettraion of tbecom uooweaitb. Here the practice ot piety, among other virtues, is absoluteiv enjoined upon the law-giv-rs and magistrates ot MassaCuUseers ny a luuuamemal CJUSIii utlohttl provision. And In the f tmaliou and ex CU ion ot the laws necessary for the good admiuis ras hod of i he commouweauh they are io De governed by tne principles of pie ty, justice, moderation, t- mperance, industry and frugality. There is to De a constant auherence to these principles required ot the law-givers and magisira.es. Now, Mr. Pre id»mt, what do we un derstand by “piety ?” Ouo of ihe d tl oitions of the woid given by Webster is: ••veneration or reverence ot the Supreme B jing and love of Hte . haiacti r, obedic-ut love of the will of God and the zealous deVo 1 in to Hie service ; religion; oancti y.” Then acco ding to tne constitu ilonof Masoacnu.etrs.tne law-givers of that state in forming laws mustao so in a spirit of venera.ion of the Su preme Being in a spirit of love of His character, ob dlent love ot nis will, ma z alous devotion ot His service. Now, Mr. President, the Supreme Being has said that divorce snail be granted for no Ciuse except fornica tion. By my am ndmeut I have asked tne senator from Massachu setts and other senators to ac. tn obedience to that law of the Supreme B lug and forbid divorce tor any other eau e wherever ihe junsaic tion of the United B.aUS tX ends, as well us in an the l’< rrnori in in i he District of Columbia, ana 1 insist that the senator trom Massachusetts cannot Vote against my amendment without a palpable violation of the spirit of the constitution of his own state, which requires the law givers for that people to practice morality arid exercise piety, which means obedient love to the will of the 8u preme Being. And obedience to His will io the enactment of laws must restrain divorces wi'tiin the rule laid down by him. Upon what principle, then, can the Sc.ator from Maesachusi t:s vote against my amendment? Ana why should the senator seek to punish a peison in Uah for practicing polygamy and retuse to pass a law prevenriug the des ruction of the family and the practice of polygamy in the Distrist ot Columbia COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, THURSDAY MORNING, JULY 24, 1884. and the Territories? And if rhe poly i gamy of Utah and the illegal divorce arid tne remarraige of parties in the District of Columbia stand con demned upon the same moral i?’- OUQ d whv should the senator from M 'ssa cim-etis seek by legislation to punish the one and refuse to legislate to suppress tne other? I will unite with him if he will leave the other unoon stuu'lonal or oppressive provisions out ot bis bill, to pass laws still more severe, if need be. for tne punishment of polygamy in Utah, it he will unite with the senators for the passage oi 'awe applicable to rhe District of Columbia and the territories which shall forbid a party to marry again who has according to moral law been illegally divorced and who wt)«n be remarries is declared by the Divine Being as an adulterer. binoe our last discussion on this question I was glad to see that the general conference of the Methodist Episcopal church, in session at P 11- adelphia,has condemned illegal mar riages, and has passed a resolution saying that divorce should be con fined to theciuse laid down by the Savior himself, and that alone, and h >s forbidden I’B ministers to per form the marriage ceremoney be tween parties who under that rule have no right to marry again. This is a nobleexampie set by thatcburch ; and I trust that the congress of the Uaitea btates, witbin the limits of its jurisdiction in the District of Colum oia and all the territories, will by law seta like example to the S ates and to all the p-ople of this Union. In the discussion of this question the other day I confined myself to a living Issue, to an evil which is now prevalent, which may properly be said to ba our greatest national sin. M st of my references were to New England, not witn any view of miK )ng an assault upon that eection of the union any more than upon any otner section guilty of the same practice, but because the evil seems to be the most prevalent there, and the statistics showing its prevrb nee were at hand, given us by New Eng land authors, to show the true state of things. Idid iotgo buck to the History ot New England and. refer to >ny other evil or any other bad point in her history which might seem aisconteoted with the suij rct under discussion. I tried to confine myself to a discussion of the evils which de stroy the pe ice and sand y of the family, which is the unit of the state. lam very soriy the senator from Massachusetts is not in his seat, for I aesire that he shall hear the re marks that I am going to make. However,it Is a matter within his own discretion as to whether he will do so or not. But, Mr. President, my friend from Massachusetts in his reply, while h justly acquitted me of any purpose to io injustice to New England, did not think proper to confine himself to the living issues ot to-day, but be felt it his du’y to go bwk and disinter for exhibition the corpse of slave ry, which is now one of tne dead Issues of the past. He charges that I hid for a large portion ot my life supported an insti tut on ( m aning slavery) lying at the foundation of government which pro hibited marriage to a majority of the people of mv state. In (hat connec ion, how ver, he was a little at fault in bis figures, as slaves wore, j be lieve mv. rat any time a majority of he people ot Georgia, yet they form ed a large min any of our people, but I am cnarged with having sup ported the institution of slavery most of my life waicn prohibited marriage amoi g the staves, it may not be in apprupri tie, however unpleasant the ia«k may be, for me to make some reference to tne origin of slavery In this country, and to enow who were responsible for its introduction. As slavery is now dead in this country, it is certainly as proper for me to go b ick and refer to its origin and early prac’ices as it is tor the s-oator from Mats ichusetts to introduce it into this discussnn and lef -r to its prac tices twenty years ago. It is also proper to inquire when and how and by whom it was intro duced into ihedifLreut states of the Union; and as tair an illustration as any will be Lund in the history or tne two states, Massachusetts and Georgia. In my other speech I took occasion to contrast the polygamy ot U ah and New England; now it will become to some extent my duty to contrast the slavery of Massachusetts and Georgia, In doing this 1 shall quote from tne nistory of Massachu setts on the slavery question. I shall meke some extracts from the book written oy George H. Moore, a mem ber ot the historical society or tne state of Massachusetts, which is en titled "Notes on tne history of slav ery io Maesachusetiß, u and from E liott's history of New England. I shail first quote from Moure in substance as follows. SLAVERY IM MASSACHUSETTS. “The puritans in their earliest code made ample provisions for slavery and added the conviction that slav ery was established by the law ot God and that cniisiianity always recog nized it as tne antecedent Mosaic practice.” (Moore’s notes on the his ■ <>ry of slavery in Massachusetts, pages 106 and 123 4 ) •‘Massachusetts held in slavery S jotta and Irish. (Elliott’s history of New England voiume 2, page 179). “Inaians and negroes were bought and sold without compunction Dy priest and people alike.” (Ibid, page 180”) •‘Turougb all the wars captive In dians were sold as slaves, and In dians were hsla as slaves without compunction.” (Ibid, pages 175 6) “Tne people of Massachusetts made rum and carried cargoes cf it to Atrioa, and bought cargoes of slaves for tne market of the west Indies and Southern Colonies, and brought portions of them to Now England.” (Ibid, page 179) “Aged and infirm slaves were set free to relieve the master from the charge of supporting mem.” (Mo’re on slavery in M issachusetts.page 58 ) “The people ot Massachusetts rais ed slaves for the markets.” (Ibid, page 69.) "They were taxed like horses, oxen, cows, goats, and sheep, and swine, until after the commencement of the war oi the rev-lution.” (Ibid,page 65) “Negroes were looked upon as a good dog is now. They were com monly treated with kindness but were liable to abuse as dogs are.” (E> Hott, page 182) N groes were advertised for sale as we now advertise a horse or a cow, and the newspapers of the day con tain such advertisements as these, which I should like tue senator from Massachusetts, if be bad remained in the ball, to nave heard; ; “ 1 likely negro wench to be sold, inquire of prime .” “To be sold by the subscriber, of Bradford, a likely negr > w. ne.h, 18 I years ot age; is acquainted with ail ’sorts or nous 'worn; is sold for no Ifatt't, June 15 1773 ” U ider 'he oateuf Oc’. 1708, the ; Boston News-Letter has the follow ing advertisements: "A negro woman, ag"d about 31 years, to De sold. Inquire at post offl :e in Cornhill, Bos 00, and snow lutthur.” October 11. same year; “An Indian woman, aged about 30 years, to be sold. Inquire at the postcfflie in Oornhill, Boet-n, and know rurthur. N vember 231.” |2 E liott, pages 181 2 ] Moore, iu nia notes on slav’ ty in M :88>ichusetts, page 70, sayt: ’ N ‘gro men, women, and children were mix ed up in the sales of weating apparel, gold watches and other goods;’’ and then he gives specimens ot adv, rtise meats as follows: “Very good Batba d-es rum is offered with a young ne gro that has had the small-pox;” “Competitors tfter ilke'v men and women, just arrived ;” "Negro men, new, and negro boys who have been in tne country some time;” “Aod also just arrived a choice parcel of negro boys and girls; “A Itkely ne gro man, born tn me country and bred a farmer, fit for anv service;” “A negro woman, about 22 years old, with a b y about 5 months,” etc • A likely n->gro woman t about 19 years, at.ii a child ab< ut 6 months ot age, to be sold together or apart;” and a “lively negro mao taken by ex ecu’ion, au 1 to be sold by public auction at the Royal Exchange t-v.> eru iu Kong street, at six o’clock this afternoon.” Again. 2 Elliott, page 178, the fol lowing a>v msement: “Just imported trom D iblin.on the brig D rbv,a parcel of Irish servants, men and worn n aod to bes -id cheap, by Irsaei B aramen, of Stamford, January 5, 1774.” These may serve as specimen ad Vt rtisemeuts of slaves iu Massachu setts for sale, and it will be seen that the slaveholders of that good old commonwealth were iu condition to accommodate and were very accom modating to purchasers. They c mid sell you an Irish slave or a Scotch slave, an Indian slave or a negro slave; they could sell you a man or a woman, or they could sell you a mother with a child 6 mouths old, to be sola together or apart as it best suited the purchaser; and they could sell to one person the father ot a chbd, and to another person the mothe ,and to a third person me child itself, which was held to be 1-gitimare if the master consented to the inter course when the parks were never married. Aod they sold negroes “taken by execution” tor the pay ment of debts oi the owner. This snowed a very liberal commerce in slave property in Massachusetts. Anything the purchaser wanted in that line he could get for the money. Hubbard,’be contemporary nisto rian of the Indian wars, says of these cap ives: “O those who were not so desper ate or sullen to sell tneir lives tor nothing but yield In time, tue male children were sent to the Bermuda’s. Os the females, some were sent to the Eaglish towns; some were disposed or among otuer Indians, to whom they were deadly enemies, as Well as to ourselves.” (Moore, page 5.) "Ihe colonists of Massachusetts assumed to themselves *a right to tieat the Indians on the footing ol 01 naanites or Ammekit-s,’ and prac tical! v regarded them from the first as toriorn and wreiched heaihen, possessing few rights wuich were en titled to respect.” (3 B.ncroit, page 408,Moore, page 30.) " I’hey exported Indians to sell for negroes.” (Moore, page 32 ) Thu colonists of Massachusetts sold Indian prisoners on public ac count, aod the treasurer in giving an account ot nis stewardship, has this item: “Oaptives: for one hundred and eighty.eight prisoners at WaisOid, £397 13.” toe author says: “There is a peculiar significance in the phrase waicti occurs in the rec ord—‘sent away by the treasurer.’ It means sold into slavery ’ ’ (Massa chusetis records, volume 5; page 58; Moore page 35 ) Anything to turn an honest penny. When King Pmlip, me great Indian leader, ieii, nis wife and son, the queen and prince of his great tribe, were taken prisoners. Os their treat ment that great man, Eaward Ever ett, says: "Wnat was the fate of Philip’s wife and child? She is a woman ; he is a lad. They did not surely hang them? No; that would have been merciful. lue boy is the grandson, the moth er is tne dauguter-m law of good old Massassoit, the first and b et friend tue English ever had in New En gland. Perhaps—perhaps now Pump is stain and nis warriors scattered to the tour winds, tnev will allow his wifeandsouto go back—tne widow and the orphan—to finish their days and sorrows in their native wilder ness. They are sold into slavery— West India slavery—an Indian prin cess and her child, add from the cool breezes of Meant H >pe, from tne wild freedom of New England tor es s. to gasp under the lasn beneath me blazing sun of the tropics; bitter as death, ay, bitter as bell 1 Is there anything—l do not say iu the range of humanity—is there anything ani mated that would not struggle .against this?” (Moore, pages 43 and 44.) "The practice was to consider such issue (the children of the slave m itn er) as staves and the property of tne master of the parents, liable to be sold and transferred like other Chat tels, and as assets in tne hands of executors and administrators.” (Moore, page 21.) “The Indians ol Cape Sable, who Lad n> ver been io the taast guilty ol any inj ary done to N>w E gland, were kidnaoped and sent ufl to ba sold.” (Ibid, page 47 ) “The Dceehug ot staves was found not to be profl able and not regarded witn favor. Dr. Belknap says that negro children were considersd au incumbrance in a family; when they were weaned they were given away like pupuies. Tuey were frequently pubnciy advertised to be giveu away sometimes with the additional in ducement of a sum ot money to any one who would take them off.” (Ibid, page 57.) “It was in the power of the mas ters in Massachusetts to deny bap tism to their slaves, and they prac- Iticed such denial, as appears from tne extract from Mathias Plant, ths secretary to the Society for tne propa- gation of me Gospel,” &c. (Ibid, page 58 ) “Ir 17j8 it was adjuiged by’hesu peticr court of M issionusetts that the child of a female stave never married accord ng to any ondofthe forms prescribed by the laws i f the land, by another siave wno Had kept her company with her mas er’s c n smt was not a bastard.” (Ibid, cage 58 ) If'bis decision was right, there were no bastards among the slave coiidren of Georgia. Mi Paltrey gives it as his opinion that from the reverence entertained by the fathers in New England for :he uup la! tie it is safe to inter that suve husbands and wives were nev er parted “The t irhers of N»w E igland also herished a due regar Si vs Moore — “For parental and filial duties and responsibilities; yet it is certain that slave tn ithers and children were separated. R sting up m ‘ihelawot Goa established in Israel* ths Purt ian cou.d have had no scruple about this matter. Such a condition of m ster and slave must have b en re garded as an ax om. as it was by the Hebrew. Mr. Pdfrev’s interence is not warranted bv facts,” Bear iu mind, Moore, the historian, says: “It ie certain that slave mothers and cbildr-o were separated, and >hat Mr. Pilfrey’s inference was not warranted by the fan’s when he in ferred that the New England fathers did not separate slave t.usbandsand wives in Massachusetts." Sco s, Irish, Indians and negroes, when taken as prisoners of war or kidnapped or purchased with rum or other commodiiy, were considered and treaied as slaves. J >hn Adams says: • I ived for many years in times when the practice of slavery was not disgraceful, when the best men in my vicinity thought it not inconsis tent witn thi-ir character.” (Adams’ works 10 38 J) •‘l’ there w .s apreviilingsentiment against slavery in M issachusetts, as has been constantly claimed ot late, tne people of that s ate, far less demonstrative than their descend ants, had an ex raordiuary wvof Lot showing it.” (M oore, page 110 ) Cat on Mather, wno wts a promt neot man ann minister of the gospel in New England in his day, illus trates tne temper of the times in ref erence to enslaving Indians, in the foiPiwiug paragraph: “We know not when or how these Indians first became inhabuan’s of this mighty continent, yer we may guess that probably the dev I decoy el these miserable savages hith-r in hopes that tne gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ would never come here to des rov or disturb is absolute em pire over them.” (M 'ore, page 31.) I > 2 Elliott, page 181, we tlud it re cited that— “Wuereas, Jarnos, the servant and bondman unro R chard, hatbitads desire to marry, and having manifest ed the same to nis said master who promises to buy a yokef-llow for ulm, but upon some consideration hate thougnt it better to m ke said Janus his servant, to serve him five 'ears, without m irriige, tnan to pay £3O tor nis lib-riy.” In other words, pay £3O for a wife for mm— “Staves who committed offenses were tried and punis’ ed in the most rigorous manner. Phyllis, a negri woman, and Mark, a negro man, Were suspected of poisoning their master. Captain Codman, of Cnailes ton, Mass, They were put on trial and c mvicted, and the c. urt sentenced Maik 10 be hanged and Phylis to be burned to death. On tue day of ex cution they were botn drawn to Ihe p ace ot t xicu ion, at tend. d by tne greatest number of spectators ever known on such occa sion, where the former was banged by the neck until he was dead, as er wnicn bis b > 'v -nd the litter burned .0 death ” (2 E iutt, 187.) “Staves weio forbidden to be out an hour after sunset upon pain of whipping and imprisonment. They were furbidde. to meet together in the streets more than two at a rime, and slaves wno assaulted a wrote man were to be whipped and smt be yond sea, whatever the provocation.” (Ibid, nage 189 ) “In 1774 the slaves of Massachu setts sent their humble petition to tne governor, in wnich they say: ■We nave no property; we have no wives; we have no city, no country.” (E.uott, page 192 ) This did not look like Massachu setts was providing for the marriage relation at that time. “In referri gto tne horrors of the slave tiade. In which Massachusetts r ook so prominent a part, Jonathan Elwaras, the great New E iviand di vine, staies that of me lUO,OCO siav s annually exported from Airica, 35, 000 perished before they arnve i 10 America, and that another 25 000 uied in the ‘seasoning.’ And tha., in cluding these and those who perished in tne wars for tne capture of slaves in Africa,a hundred thousand human Deiugs were snoually destroyed to -iioport'the traffic.” (E.liott, pags 199.) Tn New E igland the harbors of B.isiol and Newport weie alive with vessels engage a in the traffic, and large fortunes were rapidly raised from its profits ” (ibid, page2os.) So much tor slavery in M issaenu setts. Lst us see tor a moment how tne free negroes and free Indians fared in tnat state. In second Elliott, page lt9, I find the follow mg: "Free Indians or negroes who en tertained any staves iu their houses were subj 'c ed to imprisonment and whipping (1723) and tree n-groes and Inciausare wmpped who kept arms, j hey were forbid on puonc days to sell any cakes or drinks. They were compelled to bind out tneir children beiore they were four years old to some English master. It they receive any stolen goods they w. re to be imprisoned for life. It onnvicta i of theft, 1 hey were to be shipped off be yond sea.” 8o that the fate of the free negroes and Indians iu Massachusetts was little better than that of the slaves. If the marriage relation was recog mz-d among them the off-priug were ciucliy taken irom the taiher and motnur before w-re four ye are of age and bound to an English maider. In otner words the auildren of tree ne groes and Indians were enslaved for tne benefit of the E ighsb mas'ers. This was slavery in Missaebu eits. Neither slavery in Georgia, which I supported for a portion of my life, nor any other Slav, ry, even ot the dark ages, was ever more tyranical, venal and oppressive than ths slavery ot Massachusetts. MULATTORS. But my buuuraole frl»nd from M issacbuset’s did not c >nfiue him seif r o me allegation thai I had sup por ed for a large part of my life an institu ion tnat did uotrec iguizs the marriage rotation, but he also called attention to the further tact that there wis a large number ot muiat toes in the south to be see .unfed for. Now, Mr. President, I have never claimed perfection for the south. Human nature exists there asttdoes everywhere else, and I shall not claim that the people ot tne south are entirely free trom passion. But, having shown wnece slavery came fro n When it invaded my state, I will now try to account tor at least a portion of the muiattoes. And again I state lam Very sorry the senator trom Massachusetts is not in the o“amber ro near me remarks I make on tnat subjeo’. Inorder tt do this it will be necessary for me again to T-ter to the nisiory of Massachusetts. I will here quote a few passages from that his ory: “sh iaw of 1703, chapter 2. was in res raint of tne manumission, dis charge or setting free of mulatto or negro slaves— (Moore on slavery in Massachu se ts, p<g“ 53 ) ‘ In 1695 an negroes, muiattoes— Yes, “muiattoes” ie rhe word— “ And Indian servants, as well male as female, of 16 years and up ward Were taxed at the rate of 12 pence per poll, same as other polls. In 1695 ail negroes, mullanes and lonian ser vants,males ' f 14 years and upwards, at m>» rate of £2O estate, and tamales a> £l4 estate, unless disabled by in firmi y,” (Ibid, pag 62.) • One of the earliest legal oases where a mulatto was a party of which we have any record in Massachusetts is noticed in the diary of John Adams. Ir was in the superior court at Salem in 1766. Under date of Wednesday N. Vrmber 5. he says: A-tended dourt; beard tiial of an ac tion of trespass brought by a mulatto woman for damages, for restraining her of her lib rty; the first case that I ever knew ot the sort.” (Ibid,page 112:) "In another case the master pro tetested the plaintiff was his mulatto slave, and said the master was not held by law to answer, bur for plead ing the master said not guilty.”(lbld, pave 119 “As in the preceding valuations of tne property ot their constituents, Indians, negroes and mulatto slaves had been prominent articles, they must keep on still in tbe old track Indians, negroes and muiattoes must be considered as property.” [lbid, page 64 ] “Nigrues, Indians, and muiattoes were ferbidden to serve as porters in Boston, except they gave security. Their testimony was not rec-ived I’ke a white man’s in court. They were forbidden to go to fires at night. They could not buiy their friends -f er milnight or on tne Lord’s day. N 'gro, Indian and mulattoslaves are ferbidden to buy anything in the market lee’ it should enhance the pric-s (2 E Hotr 189 ”) “Tne 1 >w of 1703, chapter! prohib ited I idian, negro and mulatto ser van 8 or slaves to be abroad after 9 o’clock. “Tne law <11705. chapter 6, for tne better preven mg of a spu rious and m'Xt issue, Al. punish ne groes aid muiattoes for improper in lercouise with whites, by selling them out of the province.” (It does not tell what was to be done with the whi es.) It also punishes any negro or mulatt.i for striking a Christian, by whipping, at the descretlon of tbe justice beiore whom be may be con victed. It alto piohibits marriage of chrieTans with negroes or mulat toes. [Moore, pages 54 and 55 ]” Here you will observe, Mr. Presi dent, the muiattoes come in rather thick; indeed they are scattered all along down through the history of M B<acbiise'tß. •‘Io 1718, all negro, Indian and mu latto s rvante f r life were estimated as o'ber personal estate. [Moore,page 64 ]” Indian, negro.and mulatto servants for a term of years were to be num bereit and rated as other polls. (Ibid, page 64 )” “It was enacted by the legislature ot Massachusetts io 1786 'hat no per son au'horiz d by this act to marry shall join in marriage any white p-r --sonwl’hanv negro, Indi m, or mu latto under penalty of £SO. and all such marriages shall be absolutely null and void. (Ibid, page 59 ) Tne inhibition applies not only to the t egro and to the Indian, but to the mulatto as well. “Tne law of 1798 appears to have been the first, it not the only one in which this feature was applied to the negroes, muiattoes and Indians in bondage, and may be justly re garded as an indication of progress, for it was an admission that these unfortunate creatures had "facul ties” valuable to their owners, if not to theme* ives. (Ibid, page 63 )” Here again comes in the mulatto: And wnen in 1788, after tbe end of the revolutionary war, Massachusetts banished the free negroes from her territory by an act of her legislature, unless tn-v weresubjects oftheem peror of Morocco, with whom I pre sume tney bad va'uable commerce, or cit z-os of tne Ucited Btatss, aod if they failed to go after ten davs’ no tice. they were lianie to be punished in the bouse of correction for a fixed time; and then if they still failed to go they were to be taken up and whipped, and if they still did not go this punishment was to be inflict ed once every two months. Under this law a lengthy list of namesis given of those who received the no tice and were compelled to leave the state ; and nmong this list who Were thus banished fro n Massachusetts I find cue names of a targe numb-rot muiattoes. (Moore, 228 and 234 ) Now. Mr. President, I thing I have shown to ihe satisfaction of the sen ate. that Massachusetts was encoring laws in leferenoe to muiattoes when tne colony ol Georgia was absolutely prohibiting slavery. In Elliot ’s • is *oty. volume 2, page 178, we find the following: “In G orgia. slavery was positively prohibited (1734 )” General Ogietnorpe said: “Slavery is against tne gospel, as well as the fundamental law of England. We refused, as tiu<tees, to make a law permitting such a horrid crime.” When Massachusetts was making taws to punish muiattoes for inter course with white people, banishing the mulatto without punishing tbe white eo far as tbe historian tells ue; when she was legislating against tbe emancipation of muiattoes; when she , was fixing the rata of taxation on mu- lattoee;when she was offering mulat t.oes for sale io the market, Georgia had not a single mulatto within her limi's, nor a sl ave ot anv other char acter. But as all the other colonies nad introduced slavery, tbe people ot Ge trgia were finally tempted by the elave-deatars to try tbe institution, un i they yielded,tn the allurements of the people or Missaohusetts, and o'.h-r slave traders, and adopted It. I have already shown that Massa chusetts sent cargoes of rum to Afri ca and brought cargoes of slaves to some of tne W-st Indies, and the southern colonies, and I further show ed that they raised slaves for the market as long as thev found it prof itable. Then in purcusing slaves from Massachusetts we purchased a due proportion of muiattoes. It seems rhe proportion there was a very large one, and we got th- mulatto institu tion as we got tbe slavery institution from Massachusetts, by purchase, when we bought slaves from her. Bie was not careful ab iut the color of the slave—whether he was a Scotchman, un Irishman, an Indian, negro, or a mulatto. Tbe only ques tion wirh her was whether he would bring the money. She held him as a slave, and eh* ordered him for sale as a slave. When the expulsion act of 1788 was passed expelling free ne groes and muiattoes from Massachu setts, itmightnave seemed to some people a little unnatural to expel the muiattoes. I do not say they were akin to the people of Massacnusetts. It may have been that climatic influ-* euce nad changed their color until they bore a likeness to the good peo ple of that state, The cold bleach-* ing winds of Massachusetts, or soms o’her cause, bad very largely modi fied the ebony-like color of tbe Af-* rican in that state, and had infused a compound of yellow, so that they were no longer called negroes, but muiattoes. After these muiattoes, whether nat urally or unnaturally, were expelled from Massachusetts, they doubtless took refuge in the southern states, and their descendants have multipli ed, still transmitting the modified o dor inherited from climatic influ ence or other cause in Massachusetts. Any casual observer wno will go into M issachusetts and Georgia will see tnat the proportion the muiattoes bear to the number of negroes in that state, is muon greater than the pro portion is Georgia. Doubtless tbe wonderful *ff ct of climate. It the climate of Massachusetts does not change, thereseems to be danger that tbe pure African blood will entirely run out. and tbe yellow hue will be the predominating color of the race. 8o wonderful is the effect of tbe Mae sachnse-ts climate upon the color of the African race that it has even fol» lowed them into their retreat in the milder atmosphere of tbe south. About twenty one years ago an im m- nse cold w <ve from Massachusetts and other northern states bore down upon tne south, enveloped in smoke and s’reaked with fire, as frigid and innoepitable as the freezing winds of a Massachusetts winter. Tnie cold wave rested four long years upon tbe scu h, and it bleached with yellow large numbers ot tbe young of the negro race in that section, and they are now called muiattoes. The race was first bleacned by Massachu setts when they were slaves there. Taey have since been bleached over again from Massachusetts since they left there. The census of 1880 does not show the proportion that tbe muiattoes bear tn Georgia end Massachusetts to tne black race; Ido not find it in the the census ot 1870; hut in looking back to tbe census or 1860 I see they were taken separstely. and I want to refer to it. In 1860 Georgia, as you know, was a slave state. Wnat proportion did tne muiattoes bear to tne negroes or the blacks,as the cen’os designates them? These were in 1860, according to tbe census, 425,21'8 blacks and 36,- 000 muiattoes, being a little above 8 per cent t f the colored rsc« in Geor gia who were muiattoes in 1860. Now, bow did tbe count stand iu Massa ctusetta? In Massachusetts at tbe same p riod, toere were 6.531 blacks anu 3 071 mu attoee, being almost 50 per cent of muiattoes in Massachu setts as compared with tbe wnole number ot blacks, and a little over 8 per e nt in Georgia, bo much for slavery in Massachusetts and Ge< r gta, and eo much for tbe origin and existence of muiattoes there. Tbe senate will remember that I did not introduce slavery into this debate. Now, Mr. President, a few words in reply to another part of tne speech of the honorable gentleman from Mas sachusetts. He stated in substance 'be other day when this question was last under discussion, tnat the laws ot Georgia were substantially tbe same as the Utah bill, in refer ence to busband and wife to testify against each other in criminal cases, or their obligation to do eo. The sen at r has grossly misstated the law of my sta e, I will not say intentionally, tor I think the book was banded him on the spur ot tbe moment, and he probably had not time to examine it carefully. Tne only fault I find wtah him ie tnat be did not examine it be fore he made the assertion. What is the first section of this bill that be says is very similar to the laws of my own state? It reads as follows: “That in any proceeding and ex amination bf >re a grand jury,a judge, justice, or a United States commis sioner. or a court in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy or unlawful cohabitation, under any statute of tbe United States, the lawful hus band or wiie, as the ease may be.” That is the first section of tbe pend ing ill. the senator from Massa chusetts insisted that the law ot Georgia was substantially the same. B-fore I take my seat I must show that be grossly misstated the law of Georgia on that eubj-ct, Tne law ot Georgia was the same as it was in most ot the other states prior to the act of 1866. which was passed by our legislature,and which is copied al most li erally in tbe code,but as I have the pamphlet acts of the legislature be fore me, I propose to read from that instead of tbe code, simply remark ing before I read tnat in no case pri or to that time could busband or wife be a wit’ess agtinst each other; thev could in no case be compelled to testify against each other; tbt y were not to be called. Parties to tbe re cord were not witnesses; parties who were infamous or convicted of felony were not witnesses. Parties at inter est were not witne-s-e. In a word, the old rule of evid noe substantially that we are ail familiar with, obtain >d. In 1866 the legislature of Geor gia passed this act. “An act to deciare certain persons OOMCILUDXD OM BMOOXP IAAM, NO. 177